RE: Netconf Event: Issue #1: To RCP or Not to RPC

["Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>]

hi

Ok. This could get fun :-)

So, while I can bend the definition  of an RPC
(http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/C/node33.html) to kind of make it fit to
what we are doing in Netconf, the fact is that even without a tag called
<rpc> we would still have
	- A connection between the client and server
	- The ability to execute a command on the server 
We couldn't get the response, but we could have designed around it.
Personally, I think the <rpc> wrapper is much more elegant than doing
that.

It is its role as a wrapper that we are trying to mimic. Perhaps we
should rename it to <one-way-message> and loose the rpc bit. That might
make things cleaner while still maintaining some alignment.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Shafer [mailto:phil@juniper.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:ZZ00:EXCH]
Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Netconf Event: Issue #1: To RCP or Not to RPC 


"Sharon Chisholm" writes:
>Note that I've always viewed the term <rpc> as a bit of a misnomer 
>since the Netconf RPC isn't really a traditional RPC. I suspect that 
>perhaps some of the disconnect on this issue might lie in how much one 
>treats <rpc> like an XML tag and how much one treats it like a 
>traditional RPC.

I'd like to jump into the pro/con debate, but first I'd like to
understand your point here, since that may be the source of my dislike
this notification encoding.  Please clue me in on why the Netconf RPC
isn't really a traditional RPC.

Thanks,
 Phil


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>